Even though I don't look to the Constitution as the paragon of liberty that some seem to believe it is, I still find the Bill of Rights interesting.
And, I find it funny that some people claim that the Bill of Rights is "only binding on the federal government". Nonsense.
What the Bill of Rights did was to recognize that there are things no other person is allowed to do to you. No matter their justification. "Government" is nothing but people- so forbidding government to do something means it is recognized that no individual has the right or the authority to do those things to any other individual. You can't eliminate this truth by paring a "government" down to one person or by piling people together until you can call it a "government".
No government can do what is wrong for an individual to do without being in the wrong, and no individual can do things that are wrong for "government" to do, either. Because there is no "government"; there are individuals. The Bill of Rights just recognizes that some things are wrong for one person to do to any other person. But it only makes it a crime for government to do those things.
.
What people don't seem to understand is that people have rights (and powers) but the government only has power. The government does not have rights. The 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution explains this clearly saying that the powers not expressly given to the fedgov are retained by the states and the people.
ReplyDeleteBut can a state pass a law that violates the rights of its people? No. The 14th Amendment doesn't allow that.
Still, rights-violating laws have been and are continuing to be passed by both the fedgov and stategovs. Most of these, but not all, are based in specific religious beliefs--such as the so-called war on drugs, or the Texas ban on selling sexual devices for pleasure--which are clear violations of the 1st Amendments "establishment" of religion clause.
So much for the Constitutional protections, eh? The politicians will pass whatever laws they think will get them re-elected or further their own personal moral beliefs (religion) and to hell with rights.
"rights-violating laws have been and are continuing to be passed by both the fedgov and stategovs. "
ReplyDeleteWhich is why I find the Constitution useful for showing that the government broke the contract first and is not legitimate (as if it ever were).
"Most of these, but not all, are based in specific religious beliefs--such as the so-called war on drugs, or the Texas ban on selling sexual devices for pleasure--which are clear violations of the 1st Amendments "establishment" of religion clause."
American Sharia Law.
Constitutions can't protect anything. They are a diversion and distract people from protecting themselves.
I went to your "American Sharia Law" post. As we used to say in the 60's, right on.
ReplyDeleteIf I may, in my opinion, the Bill of Rights was originally written to apply to the Federal govt only. States like Massachusetts still had their official religion, for example.
ReplyDeleteBut the instant that any of the Bill of Rights was applied to the states such as the right to free speech, even where the 1st Amendment specifically says "CONGRESS shall make no law...", then they all must apply to every layer of govt.
Actually the laws do not violate rights at all. If you read a few cases (US Supremes) you will see that the only time a case can be brought is when enforcement of teh law entails violating a person's (not just free and natural persons either but any 'person's' right).
ReplyDeleteThere is no case in controversy until someone has actually suffered a damage by or through the operation of the 'law' and it is the person who violates the right who is your adversary in court. The fact that the court expresses the opinion that the law cannot be enforced without violating a person's rights notwithstanding.
Sorry to disagree because we agree principally. I'm just not ready to concede (entirely) that we can't win these fights in courts, although I do know from personal experience how difficult it is to get a court whose experience is that the people barely know how to repeat what they are told to say in court, much less enter with an objective and a stratgey for winning.
Thanks for listening.